Tuesday, April 2, 2013

What The Heck Is Going On With the Planck Team????

It appears there is a war going on behind the scenes of the Planck Team itself, on just what the observations actually are.

From the abstract of Planck Paper I: "Overview"

"Planck finds no evidence for non-Gaussian statistics of the CMB anisotropies"

From Planck paper XXIII: "Isotropy and statistics"

"We detect pronounced signatures for both non- Gaussianities and anisotropies........a highly significant detection of both non-Gaussianities and anisotropies in the Planck data, consistent with those obtained previously with WMAP data .......the asymmetry was found to be highly significant for the whole range l=2−600."

****************

Now I am just a simple country boy, but even I can see that these two statements are directly contradictory.

24 comments:

United they stand. Divided they fall. Sounds like some of the Planck team (if at this point you can call it a team) may be forced to walk the plank if they persist in their views/interpretations of the evidence.

Aristotle, call home or rather call the Planck Team and remind them about the Law/Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Plato, we will need you too to help pull some of the Planck Team out of that cave their hardened pre-dispositions/prejudices seem to have gotten them stuck into so they can see the light of day (i.e., that wonderfully benevolent/providential "Axis of Evil").

No doubt a good viewing of The Principle will be just what the doctor would order for some of these poor ailing Planck Team members.

At this point the "Axis of Evil" (getting really tired of that name btw, hope somebody comes up with a new one, but like a bad pop song, this one just sort of sticks in your brain)- at this point the Axis is accepted as real by pretty much the entire scientific community.

That is a huge change, since when we were filming "The Principle", at least 75% of the people we talked to expected it to disappear once Planck reported (it was an "artefact", a "scanning beam anomaly", a "foreground", etc).

But there can be no real question at this point.

If we are doing science, then we have to deal with the empirical facts- in this case, the photons that impact our telescopes.

The Axis is real, it is there, and there is no controversy on this point any longer.

I think what is happening here is that the battle is no longer over the "Copernican Principle".

The fact is that the universe is non-isotropic on its largest observable scales.

The battle is now whether the standard, consensus, LCDM/Big bang/inflation standard cosmology can accommodate this.

It can't.

But too many Nobel Prizes, too many PhD's on too many walls, are at stake.

It's circle the wagons time.

But when the swagons start circling, that means you are done playing offense.

From now on you are playing defense.

It is not a good sign for those who wish to uphold the standard model.

But then again, the standard model has become a very unwieldy, ad hoc, just-so, patchwork, and scientific progress will require its abandonment.

You cannot have an anisotropic inflation, without essentially abandoning any vestige of connection to physical reality in your mathematical lash-ups.

It would appear that "fine art" of obfuscation/distraction may still trying to some degree be trying to rule the day (or just "buy time"), but it obviously cannot go on indefinitely. Einstein, of course, came up with some rather preposterous notions so as to give us a new physics which conveniently circumvented the straight forward, but clearly intolerable interpretation of the overwhelming evidence provided by Michelson-Morley et al.

Rick, would you entertain the clearly outside possibility that another "Frank-Einstein" could and would step forward and perform the seemingly impossible task of providing some fantasy alternative response which could serve to pull the current high priests of cosmology out of the fire the Axis of Evil seems to have placed them in and in the process sideline the incredible importance of that anti-Copernican Principle interpretation of the evidence the Axis of Evil is presenting to us?

I think you would agree that the fantastical notion of multiverse just ain't gonna hack it as a means of escaping the geocentric implications of the Axis of Evil -- at least with that element of the scientific community that is still grounded to any good degree in observational science as opposed to non-observational speculation.

Well, I think the Axis presents some real, serious problems for the notion of inflation, and without inflation, there is no multiverse of the kind in which one might take refuge against the demise of the Copernican Principle (which the Axis, along with much other evidence, clearly represents).

As for MMX, it needs to be repeated, preferably outside Earth's gravity well, and without shielding (as Dayton Miller suggested).

I have come to understand that all models of the cosmos involve real difficulties, without exception.

I do not scorn the scientists who are trying, especially not after the interviews I have conducted for "The Principle".

I do think, however, that the foundational problem here is metaphysical. Photons are photons, observations are observations.

It is the *interpretation* that will always reflect metaphysical pre-assumption.

Until the Copernican metaphysical pre-assumption is sufficiently challenged so as to open the door to the alternative- that is, the metaphysical pre-assumption that Earth is indeed special- well.

I think until that happens, we will continue to witness rapidly-increasing difficulties, and the evidences of them, such as the really astounding contradiction between the Planck Team papers which are the subject of this post.

I was wondering Rick, since I remember Robert saying something in essence of "The NASA make sure they wipe their websites clean of any geocentric evidence", why the same thing happened with this and 2 other probes before this one. I mean, this is a huge huge dent in the big bang baloon, so I figured it would be in "their" best interest to keep this as quite and as hidden as possible. Why they went open and public with what they found since it did put them in very bad light now?

We only *have* this data because the scientists reported it to us in the first place!

I have spoken with a number of the world's leading cosmologists on this project, and I have to tell you, the problem is, in most cases *nothing* like what you imply; a predetermined decision to hide or falsify observations.

The problem, as I said to James above, is *metaphysical assumption*.

The Copernican Principle has been so successful, for so long, and lies at the very foundation of the LCDM standard cosmology, that these guys are generally simply *unable to believe* evidence that would contradict it.

But the war is over, as far as *observational science* is concerned.

The Universe is not Copernican.

That would be shocking enough.

What is much much more shocking, is that the CMB anisotropies are *pointing at us*.

Try and be a little more compassionate toward these guys, than some of them might have been toward us when the shoe was on the other foot.

The entire metaphysical basis of the modern, scientific worldview is crashing down as we watch.

Give them a little time to come to terms with this.

Hopefully, "The Principle" will help.

I am not at war with science, or with scientists.

Far from it.

I love science, and I am very impressed with the scientists I interviewed for this project- *even the ones who are utterly convinced that the Copernican Principle must be true*.

I understand what you mean Rick, and I'm not saying to go fight to death with "science". But truth to be told, isn't that the case that scientists over the years (most of them) hidden the truth (the optical evidence) from people (mostly students)? Isn't it truth that they distorted what they found to show something that the evidence didn't point to? Isn't it the truth that someway the state of the world is partly due to the efect science and it's theories brought on people like evolution(no God), like Big Bang(no God) etc?

Some of those scientists destroyed milions of souls, lets put it that way. And in a way you and Robert are fighting ;), maybe not a war but deffinetly a battle with the scientist establishment.

Yes, hopefully your movie and what you and Robert are doing will change scientists mind, but if that was that easy they should believe what they discovered themselves in XIX century, and they still waited for someone like Einstein to come along.

I don't think without a "fight" you guys will achieve what you plan to. It's inevitable I believe.

"isn't that the case that scientists over the years (most of them) hidden the truth (the optical evidence) from people (mostly students)?"

>> No. The evidence has always been there, for those who were willing to do the hard work of seeking it out.

Obviously the "fringe" theories do not get attention in general science education classes. But we live in the internet age now. Max Tegmark makes a great point that nothing ever did more for the "obnoxious, upstart" theories, than the internet :-)

But now we are past all that.

The scientific evidence itself is clear.

The Universe is not Copernican, and it is oriented on its largest scales toward us.

It's hard to swallow, I know, but there it is.

"Isn't it truth that they distorted what they found to show something that the evidence didn't point to? "

>> Consider Einstein's response to an objector who did not accept the notion of the continuum, as recounted in "Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Spacetime", edited by Eduard Pruvogecki:

"…with the advent of quantum mechanics, Einstein became keenly aware of the difficulties his approach encountered on the microscopic level, as illustrated by the following remarks he made in the last decade of his life:

The application of the formal basis of the general theory of relativity to the 'microscopic' can, therefore, be based only upon the fact that the tensor is the formally simplest covariant structure which can come under consideration. Such argumentation, however, carries no weight with anyone who doubts that we have to adhere to the continuum at all. All honor to his doubt- but where else is there a passable road?'"

All honor to his doubt, but *where else is there a passable road*?

I think this again shows that it is metaphysical assumption that lies at the heart of this, not any intention of intentionally falsifying observations.

The reason the Copernican Principle has been so fruitful for science is that it allows scientists to mathematically treat the cosmos as an isotropic homogenous "whole" and space as a "continuum".

Clearly these are metaphysical assumptions, not scientific facts.

Clearly these assumptions are now (arguably) *both* observationally falsified.

But I do not see in the excerpt from Einstein above an attempt to falsifiy observations.

I see an almost plaintive "what else are we supposed to do"?

I do not think at this point that scientists will ignore the Axis and other observational data (although some of the guys with Nobel Prizes and papers out attacking the WMAP papers that supported it might reasonably be accused of this *going forward*).

I think we have encountered utterly shocking new data which is going to take some time to sink in.

What we need is for science to correct itself, just as its method requires.

It will not be smooth sailing, because the Copernican Principle is not some secondary aspect.

The Copernican Principle lies at the heart of all our physics.

It will take time.

There will certainly be a fight, but the shoe is on the other foot now.

By hidden I didn't mean that someone took the books and some papers from experiments and put it in a safe ;) What I meant was more of an essence that they simply were trying to not let people know of it either at all, or if they were saying something, they were saying something different.

Anyways that's the notion I got from Robert's book and couple of his lectures. In one of the videos with you he says "I was a physics major in colege and I didn't hear about this stuff". So I was pointing towards that by the word "hidden".

People does not have to lie about something to make a damage.

I'm not into "science" at all to say anything about falsyfing of evidence by scientists so can't tell much about it, except that I know of those couple instances the pro darwin scientists tried to falsify the intermediary forms.

One last remark. From what I got from Robert's book is that scientists are one of the most stubborn social groups in the history of man kind. I mean all those experiments in the XIX century and they STILL were desperately looking for something to save them, even though it could be the craziest thing ever (Einstein theories). By that it is logical to think, that the history might repeat itself again this time. I think the history showed us, that the scientists are too "presuposed" to change, they are too deep within new science to abondon it.

In anyways Rick, we'll see what will happen. God knows I would love for the world notion of those 2 science themes in the forms of evolution and big bang to change, and the "power" restored to our church, but I think it sounds too good. I think many people will find out about this stuff thanks to the movie(hopefully), but somehow it will be spinned and spinned despite that.

By the time Newton got finished formulating his law of gravity, there were very few Catholics- much less atheists- in the world who were not completely satisfied that Copernicus had been shown to be right.

The argument for Newton's gravitation was so profound, so convincing, so persuasive, as to make the cases for evolution and the Big Bang seem ridiculous by comparison.

And yet it turned out to be wrong.

I simply reiterate:

Science is a legitimate field of knowledge, with its own legitimate operational method, and its own legitimate autonomy within that domain.

I object when science begins to "feel its oats", so to speak, and starts issuing metaphysical pronouncements about the way things "really are", without bothering to let us know that these pronouncements are metaphysical in nature, and hence not the consequence of a truly scientific (provisional!) state of investigation.

In short:

The scientific method is a Wonder-hammer.

It has brough incredible benefits to humanity- so much so that, especially recently, it has decided it can go into the metaphysics, and even the theology, business.

It has failed pretty remarkably in both of those areas, and the best scientists (that I have spoken with anyway) KNOW IT.

Rick: "Try and be a little more compassionate toward these guys, than some of them might have been toward us when the shoe was on the other foot."

Rick, I think I can see your point, but at the same time let us realize that a balanced response may actually be best. (I tend to see all this in terms of an all out war for the truth and in a war there are a lot of different leaders and troops generally unified to some degree, but at the same time performing different functions in often different ways, but all, with the exception of traitors, with the same common purpose of winning for their side.) By that I mean that some of these guys play hardball and no doubt always will (the nature of the scientism beast?). Some of them will be more amenable to playing softball and thus these latter ones may be more open to being persuaded/moved more quickly and easily in the right direction.

I don't see a real problem with the anti-Copernican folks being made up of hard ball players and softball players as we seek to counter and influence the pro-Copernicans. As I say a "balanced response" may just prove most effective in the broad sweep of things.

The only side worth fighting on is the one which is dedicated to pursuing the truth proper to its legitimate operational domain.

Science has a legitimate operational domain.

It has a method proper to its legitimate domain.

That method has a truly wonderful attribute: it will, if pursued rigorously, correct itself.

The debate now can now be settled on scientific grounds.

Does the science tell us that the Copernican Principle is wrong?

Yes.

The science tells us the Copernican Principle is wrong.

But as in all things involving human pride, status, and power, the overthrow of such a foundational metaphysical principle should be expected to come only in the face of great resistance.

The average person, however, has no deep philosophical commitment to the Copernican Principle. He or she simply trusts what they have been taught, and what has been repeated over and over since early school years.

One does not reverse such deep indoctrination by "playing hardball" or "playing softball".

We have enough of that from politicians, and Lord knows we have had enough agitprop Culture War "talking points" to last a lifetime and then some.

It is important that the average person come to understand that science has now obtained for us the amazing observations which herald the end of one world view and the approach of another.

These observations will be the subject of plenty of controversy, but the outcome is clear.

Our cosmology is wrong.

It is based on a false assumption.

It will have to be replaced with something new.

That "something new" will have to proceed on the now-certain foundational assumption that we are in a very special, non-random, preferred position in the universe; both with respect to our location and with respect to our significance.

That is a world-changing, once in a century (or more) occurrence.

It is an exciting time to be in a position to influence, even if in only a small way, the development of this new world view.

I am more than satisfied to have a chance to do that.

I will leave the rest to those much wiser than I am, and to Divine providence.

I was curious as to what in the present instance can give us such strong assurance that the truth as revealed by the Planck findings and those earlier, but less distinct findings proceeding it will lead to an overcoming of the Copernican Principle. (I am playing the devil's advocate here since I am in agreement with you that it will. :-) )

I pose this query in light of the comparison to the situation (assuming here for the sake of argument that it is a valid comparison) in the world of science which for a number of years had to decide what direction to go in after the MMX. Would it insist on maintaining the conventional cosmological "wisdom" and status quo of the Copernican Principle, heliocentrism, etc. or would it move in the direction of truth.

Enter "Doc Frank" Einstein or rather Albert Einstein who delivered the baby monster called relativity with all its fantastical characteristics such as time travel, shrinking mass, etc. and the scientific world for the most part fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Those men of science who did not fall in lock-step behind such nonsense were incrementally marginalized in the following years while their later adherents may have had real difficulties getting a job unless they kept their rejection of relativity under cover.

Who in their wildest dreams could have thought such ideas of Einstein could have taken such a powerful grip on the world -- that is before that photograph of the eclipse of the sun made him an instant overnight phenomenon/celebrity?

What I am asking here is whether (in our wildest dreams?!) we could not imagine that someone or something will arrive on the scene to somehow overcome that monumental finding concerning the Axis much as Einstein overcame what appeared to be (and was!) the common sense truth being presented to the world by the MMX and other powerful corroborating experiments.

It is still very much open to question whether redshift *always* equates to distance, but if it does, then we have seen the highest redshifted light- there is nothing "behind" it.

If the universe is expanding, then there could be structure which has been redshifted beyond our horizon, but we will never be able to see it even if its there, since the light will never reach us.

So it is correct to say that Planck has observed the furthest into the cosmos we will ever see; that is, Planck has seen the furthest extent of the "observable universe".

If the universe is expanding, there may be an "unobservable universe".

It is certainly reasonable to notice the fact that the CMB is the highest redshifted structure, and is the only source of radiation coming from all directions of the sky, and conclude from these two data points that this is it.

We have seen as far as we can.

What we see is not isotropic, in terms of the CMB, and is not homogeneous, in terms of quasars, galaxies, GRB's, X-Ray sources, etc.

In short, what we see is not Copernican, and Earth is in a very special, preferred location with respect to all that we can see.

Now that the data has shown us beyond doubt that the universe is Geocentric, is there any way to link this up with the stationary fixed Earth in the centre theory other than simply stating that a moving Earth has never been proven so we are obliged to take simple observations at face value?

Observations have shown beyond any doubt that the universe is not isotropic and homogeneous; that is, observations have shown the Copernican/cosmological Principle to be false.

This does not yet amount to observational proof of "Strong Geocentrism" (Earth motionless at the center of a rotating cosmos).

The universe might simply have preferred structure aligned with our local system.

The first step is to disprove the Copernican Principle (this has been done observationally but will probably take decades to establish as a consensus).

The second step is to disprove General Relativity (this is already, arguably, accomplished by the combination of the disproof of isotropy/homogeneity, and the ridiculous mismatch between quantum theory and Relativity, but consensus will be even slower on this front).

Then and only then can we return to the question of aether, and whether absolute motion can in fact be measured.

Long way to go, but the first and key step is the Copernican Principle.

Rick, you mentioned gamma ray bursts in your last reply, I have a quote that I've been a little wary to use in debates:

"The *uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center *(some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky,contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ∝ S-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. *That is the Copernican dilemma*. To this day, after the detection of several thousand bursts, and despite earnest efforts to show the contrary, *no deviation from a uniform random distribution (isotropy) in the directions of gamma-ray bursts on the sky has ever been convincingly demonstrated*.”

*- Jonathan I. Katz, The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Universe, pp. 84, 90-91 (Oxford University Press, 2002).

Clearly Katz feels the data of GRB's presents us with a "Copernican Dilemma", but doesn't the quote say that GRB's are isotropic, and have never been demonstrated otherwise? Shouldn't it be the other way round? He also says "There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts."

The Katz claim was initially answered by assuming cosmological distances for GRB's. In this way, the claim can be dealt with from within BB/Copernican assumptions as follows:

1. GRB's begin appearing at a certain point in the history of the cosmos, long enough back that subsequent expansion will render them isotropic on the sky (the same argument that is used to explain the isotropic, spherical distribution of galaxies, although this claim is challenged by Hartnett/Hirano 2008, 2010).

2. Therefore the first claim ("If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky") is answered by the effect of cosmological expansion.

3. The claim of isotropy can be answered by a claim of homogeneity- the isotropy viewed from Earth would also be viewed from anywhere else (expansion).

Here is the problem with this answer.

It works *only* if *all* GRB's are in fact at cosmological distances.

There is excellent evidence that some are not.

I cover this topic in my talk at the Geocentrism Conference, you can get a copy of the mp3 at the GWW site.

Strangelove: As for the hardball vs softball issue...I think its pretty simple really...just answer questions with truth, in a Christian manner.

Rick: Bravo.

James: Bravo, since what Strangelove states is fully in accord with the Gospels and thus no more negates James' hardball vs softball contention than does the different manner Jesus Christ (who played both "hardball" and "softball") used with different people in different circumstances.

Please bear in mind that I never claimed that one must always play hardball or that one must always play softball. That said, the fact remains that some of us tend to be better at hardball and going up against hardball players while some tend to be better at softball and going up against softball players. May each of us properly try to discern for ourselves how we best fit into the mix while all the while striving to act with Christian charity.

Perhaps needless to say, I firmly believe that what we are engaged in is a very important battle for the truth, a truth which in the final analysis can presumably have a significant bearing/influence on the salvation of a good number of souls (and beyond that and the glory of God what else ultimately matters?!) who will in one way or the other be profoundly affected by it. With that in mind, I do not wish to forget that this battle carries with it a very significant spiritual dimension, a spiritual dimension which is by no means sugar coated or one which can be expected to always be carried out in the exclusiveness of calm conversations covered over with pleasant platitudes.

Some Copernican scientists and some who support the status quo Copernican view of the world can be extremely vile and blasphemous in the extreme just as much as the Pharisees were in their demonic hatred of Christ. (One need travel no further than a secular blog site to find this out.) Christ did not always handle the Pharisees in a so called even-handed respectful way and we as servants of the Lord (as I hope we all are) are not greater than the Master nor should we ever pretend to be.

We obviously need not try to win the day in most instances with Sacred Scripture and the Church's authority which would, of course, often be a complete exercise in futility, but at the same time when Sacred Scripture is denounced and ridiculed or when Christ's Church is denounced and ridiculed let us remind ourselves that we are not only not under a gag order to remain silent, but we may well be under a God given obligation to strike back (that is to say respond) in an appropriate fashion! May the Holy Spirit guide us and strengthen us as we seek to promote His truth as found in the fully inerrant words of Sacred Scripture. Step by step, stage by stage, but let God's truth shine forth!

"The Principle" is a movie about science, not religion, although it does highlight the tensions which exist now that science is beginning to "bump up" against questions that have previously been considered proper to the domains of theology, metaphysics, or philosophy.

Any scientist who attempts to discredit the Faith by recourse to the ever-shifting, always changing, contingent conclusions of science is richly deserving of a comeuppance on that point.

Here is a classic example.

One of our more famous interviewees, at a certain point in the film, says "if someone would have told me we would know the age of the universe to within two decimal places twenty years ago, I would have laughed at them. Now we know the universe is exactly 13.24 billion years old."

The irony, of course, is that the figure is wrong to substantially jore than two decimal places :-)

Even if one accepts the LCDM inflationary Big Bang!

You see, Planck changed that age to 13.8 billion years, a couple of weeks ago :-)